DOCSLIB.ORG

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States District Court for the District of Columbia 8/13/2019 Anacostia Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, No. 16-cv-1651 (CRC), 2019 BL 299776 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2019), Court Opinion Jump To Pagination UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANACOSTIA RIVERKEEPER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW WHEELER, et al., Defendants, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, Intervenor Defendant Case No. 16-cv-1651 (CRC) August 12, 2019, Filed August 12, 2019, Decided For ANACOSTIA RIVERKEEPER, INC., KINGMAN PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION, POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER NETWORK, Plaintiffs: Seth L. Johnson, Jennifer C. Chavez, EARTHJUSTICE, Washington, DC. For SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agencym in his official capacity, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants: Sue Chen, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC. For DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, Intervenor Defendant: Dale G. Mullen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, Richmond, VA. For WET WEATHER PARTNERSHIP, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES, Amicuss: F. Paul Calamita, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, AQUALAW, PLC, Richmond, VA. CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge. CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER MEMORANDUM OPINION The Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "Act") and its implementing regulations create an intricate process in which States and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") share responsibility for monitoring and limiting pollution in the nation's navigable waters. As one part of that process, States must establish water quality standards for bodies of water within their borders. If a particular water body falls short of those standards, States must develop what are known as total maximum daily loads ("TMDLs"). TMDLs indicate the maximum daily amount of a pollutant that may permissibly enter the water body without violating the relevant quality standards. EPA must approve or reject TMDLs established by States. The portions of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers flowing through the District of Columbia are sufficiently contaminated to require the District to establish TMDLs for E. coli bacteria in the rivers. It did so in 2014, and EPA approved the TMDLs that same year before issuing a revised approval in 2017. Plaintiffs, organizations whose members use the rivers for recreational activity, allege that EPA violated the CWA when it approved these TMDLs.1 Specifically, they contend that EPA failed to approve absolute maximum levels of E. coli discharge into the District's waters on any given day; improperly ignored certain water quality standards that the discharge levels must address; and erroneously concluded that the District's TMDL development process had undergone sufficient public participation. They move for summary judgment, asking the Court to vacate the TMDLs. EPA and the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, a regulated party that has intervened as a Defendant, cross-move for summary judgment, insisting that EPA's approval of the TMDLs complied with the law. The Court sides largely with Plaintiffs. EPA violated the plain text of the CWA when it approved "total maximum daily loads" that did not establish daily maximum discharge limits. Further, while EPA properly concluded that the [*2] TMDLs need not achieve one of the water quality standards at issue here, its reasoning regarding the others is flawed. Consequently, the Court will grant in part and deny in part each party's motion for summary judgment and vacate the TMDLs, staying the vacatur to allow for the development of new ones. Because the Court will vacate the TMDLs on substantive grounds, it need not decide Plaintiffs' challenge to the sufficiency of the public participation process. I. Background A. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is a "complex statutory and regulatory scheme . that implicates both federal and state administrative responsibilities." PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 , 704 (1994). Congress enacted the law to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) . Congress structured the Act to reflect principles of cooperative federalism, explicitly "recogniz[ing], preserv[ing], and protect[ing] the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, [and] to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of . water resources." Id. § 1251(b). To this end, Congress vested substantial authority in the States while giving EPA an oversight role. See Defs. of Wildlife v. EPA, 415 F.3d 1121 , 1124 (10th Cir. 2005). The Act requires each State to develop water quality standards for any interstate water body in its boundaries, and to submit these standards to EPA for review and approval. Id.; see 33 U.S.C. § 1313(a) . EPA regulations specify what the State's submissions must contain. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.6 . The "two primary components" of water quality standards are designated uses and water quality criteria. Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346 , 349 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Anacostia Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Jackson ("Jackson II"), 798 F. Supp. 2d 210 , 215 (D.D.C. 2011). https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/AnacostiaRiverkeeperIncvWheelerNo16cv1651CRC2019BL299808DDCAug122?1565728361 1/13 8/13/2019 Anacostia Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, No. 16-cv-1651 (CRC), 2019 BL 299776 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2019), Court Opinion A designated use, as the name suggests, reflects "the manner in which each of [a State's] covered waters are to be utilized by governments, persons, animals and plants." Jackson II, 798 F. Supp. 2d at 215 ; see also 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(a) . For example, a State might designate a water body for recreational use or agricultural use. Water quality criteria, meanwhile, "are measures of the conditions of a water body." Jackson II, 798 F. Supp 2d at 215 . They "come in two varieties: specific numeric limitations on the concentration of a specific pollutant in the water . or more general narrative statements applicable to a wide set of pollutants." Am. Paper, 996 F. 2d at 349 ; see also 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(b) . To enforce pollutant limitations, the CWA created the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). The NPDES requires State and local wastewater authorities (as well as other entities that release pollutants) to obtain permits for pollutant discharges from a "point source"—which is a "discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance" such as a pipe or a drain. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) . NPDES permits must include "pollutant release limitations necessary for the waterway receiving the pollutant to meet 'water quality standards'" established by the State. Am. Paper, 996 F.2d at 349 . Because "non-point sources"—such as natural erosion, agricultural runoff, or overflows from urban areas—create additional discharges into the water, permitting [*3] of point sources alone does not ensure that pollution levels satisfy water quality standards. Because "EPA lacks the authority to control non-point source discharges through a permitting process," Defs. of Wildlife, 415 F.3d at 1124 , the CWA requires States to monitor their water bodies and identify when extant pollution limitations "are not stringent enough to implement any [applicable] water quality standard[.]" 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A) . States must submit biennially to EPA so-called "303(d) lists," which indicate which of their water bodies do not, and based on existing pollution limitations are not expected to, attain the applicable water standards. 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(d) . Once a State includes a water body on the 303(d) list, it has a statutory obligation to develop total maximum daily loads. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C) . TMDLs "specify the absolute amount of particular pollutants the entire water body can take on while still satisfying all water quality standards." Jackson II, 798 F. Supp. 2d at 216 (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(c) ). "TMDLs are central to the Clean Water Act's water-quality scheme" insofar as they "tie together point-source and nonpoint-source pollution issues . [to] address[] the whole health of the water." Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021 , 1025 (11th Cir. 2002). A TMDL's overall cap is the sum of allotted pollutant limitations to various sources: "wasteload allocations" for point sources and "load allocations" for non-point sources. 40 C.F.R. §§ 130.2(g)-(h) . In short, the TMDL process requires States to account for the background pollution caused by non-point sources and budget to each point source a daily discharge limit that will ensure compliance with the underlying water quality standards. The Act requires States to engage in a "continuing planning process" to improve water body conditions, including by implementing TMDLs, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(e)(3)(C) , and to consider TMDLs as part of water quality management plans to improve water conditions, 40 C.F.R. § 130.6(c)(1) . But TMDLs themselves have no self-executing regulatory force. Rather, they are informational tools used by State and federal authorities to plan a coordinated effort to attain water quality standards. See Jackson II, 798 F. Supp. 2d at 216 . NPDES permits must be "consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation" in a TMDL. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) . B. The District's Water Quality Standards The District of Columbia's water quality standards classify all of its surface waters as "Class A" waters. Class A refers to the "primary contact recreation" designated use, which means "water contact sports or activities that result in frequent whole body immersion or involve significant risks of ingestion of the water." D.C. Mun. Reg. ("D.C.M.R.") 21 §§ 1101,1199. As relevant here, this designated use includes two narrative and two numeric criteria.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housing in the Nation's Capital
    Housing in the Nation’s2005 Capital Foreword . 2 About the Authors. 4 Acknowledgments. 4 Executive Summary . 5 Introduction. 12 Chapter 1 City Revitalization and Regional Context . 15 Chapter 2 Contrasts Across the District’s Neighborhoods . 20 Chapter 3 Homeownership Out of Reach. 29 Chapter 4 Narrowing Rental Options. 35 Chapter 5 Closing the Gap . 43 Endnotes . 53 References . 56 Appendices . 57 Prepared for the Fannie Mae Foundation by the Urban Institute Margery Austin Turner G. Thomas Kingsley Kathryn L. S. Pettit Jessica Cigna Michael Eiseman HOUSING IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL 2005 Foreword Last year’s Housing in the Nation’s Capital These trends provide cause for celebration. adopted a regional perspective to illuminate the The District stands at the center of what is housing affordability challenges confronting arguably the nation’s strongest regional econ- Washington, D.C. The report showed that the omy, and the city’s housing market is sizzling. region’s strong but geographically unbalanced But these facts mask a much more somber growth is fueling sprawl, degrading the envi- reality, one of mounting hardship and declining ronment, and — most ominously — straining opportunity for many District families. Home the capacity of working families to find homes price escalation is squeezing families — espe- they can afford. The report provided a portrait cially minority and working families — out of of a region under stress, struggling against the city’s housing market. Between 2000 and forces with the potential to do real harm to 2003, the share of minority home buyers in the the quality of life throughout the Washington District fell from 43 percent to 37 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020 Transit Development Plan
    DC Circulator Transit Development Plan 2020 Update April 12, 2021 (Page intentionally left blank) DC Circulator 2020 TDP i April 2021 Transit Development Plan 2020 Update DRAFT Table of Contents 1.046T 46T Introduction46T ..............................................................46T .................................................... 1 46T 46T Purpose of the Transit Development Plan (TDP)46T ..............................................................46T ............ 1 46T 46T Transit Development Plan Process46T ..............................................................46T ................................. 3 2.046T 46T DC Circulator System Overview46T ..............................................................46T ....................... 4 46T 46T History46T ..............................................................46T ............................................................................. 4 46T 46T Organizational Structure46T 46T ............................................................................................................... 6 46T 46T Strategic Goals and Objectives46T ..............................................................46T ....................................... 6 46T 46T Levels of Service46T 46T ............................................................................................................................ 8 46T 46T Fare Structure46T ..............................................................46T ............................................................... 10 46T 46T Fleet
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Anacostia River Progress on Commitment
    Environmental Health Administration Bureau of Environmental Quality Watershed Protection Division Restoring the Anacostia River Progress on Commitment Mayor Williams’ Administration has made a commitment to clean up the Anacostia River and revitalize its waterfront. The restoration of the river and its neighborhood streams is an important component of the District’s comprehensive initiative to revitalize the community from the Southwest Waterfront up to the Maryland boundary. Below is a list of water quality enhancement projects underway in the watershed in support of the Mayor’s Anacostia Initiative. · Combined Sewer Overflows: DC WASA has proposed a plan to control Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) in the District at a proposed cost of $1.265 billion in current dollars. The plan calls for reducing CSOs by 96% overall, and by 98% in the Anacostia. This will be achieved by constructing approximately 10 miles of underground tunnels to collect the mixture of wastewater and stormwater. The stored material will be pumped to Blue Plains for treatment before being discharged to the river. In addition, the plan calls for separation of sewers in selected areas, and removal of 13 of the current 59 outfalls. · Wetland Restoration: In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Department of Health Environmental Health Administration (DOH EHA) has restored 42 acres of wetlands in Kingman Lake in the Anacostia. DOH EHA is building on that success by creating 18 additional acres of fringe wetland in the upper Anacostia and 10 acres near Heritage Island. · Kingman and Heritage Islands: Jointly funded by USACE and DC, the goal of this project is to restore the southern half of Kingman Island as a natural recreational area.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Application
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Regist er Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Kingman Park Historic District________________________________ Other names/site number: ______________________________________ Name of related multip le property listing: Spingarn, Browne, Young, Phelps Educational Campus; Spingarn High School; Langston Golf Course and Langston Dwellings ______________________________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: Western Boundary Line is 200-800 Blk 19th Street NE; Eastern Boundary Line is the Anacostia River along Oklahoma Avenue NE; Northern Boundary Line is 19th- 22nd Street & Maryland Avenue NE; Southern Boundary Line is East Capitol Street at 19th- 22nd Street NE. City or town: Washington, DC__________ State: ____DC________ County: ____________ Not For Publicatio n: Vicinity: ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Spingarn Etal Educational Campus 2.Pdf
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORlC PRESERVATION OFFICE * * * lDSTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICA TION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation _X_ Historic District Amendment of a previous designation Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________ Browne Junior High School, Charles Young Elementary School, and Phelps Architecture, Construction, and Engineering (aka Vocational) High School, and Their Grounds and Surrounding Landscape's Educational Campus and Historic District. Propertyname __________________________________ Ifany pari ofthe interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. 850 - 26th Street, N.E., 820 - 26th Street, N.E., and 704 - 26th Street, N.E., and their grounds and surrounding landscape. Address___________________________________________ Parcel 1600043 1600043 and/or 1600045 Square and lot number(s) _____________________________________________ 5B (5D in 2013) Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ___________________________ 1931 - 1952 Date of construction Date of major alteration(s~ ______________ Merrel Coe, Municipal ArchlNathan Wyeth, Architect 19th and 201 Century Colonial Revival Architect(s) Architectural style(s) ___________~_ Public Schools Public Schools Original use _______________ Present use ________________ D.C. Government Propertyowner _______________________________________ 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Legal address of property owner _________________________ Kingman Park Civic
    [Show full text]
  • State of Washington, D.C.'S Neighborhoods A-3
    State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods Prepared by Peter A. Tatian G. Thomas Kingsley Margery Austin Turner Jennifer Comey Randy Rosso Prepared for The Office of Planning The Government of the District of Columbia September 30, 2008 The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 UI project no. 08040-000-01 State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................. vi About this Report ............................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 3 II. Demographics................................................................................................. 9 Population......................................................................................................................9 Households..................................................................................................................13 III. Economy – Jobs and Income ..................................................................... 15 Employed Residents and Unemployment Rate...........................................................15 Poverty and Household Income ..................................................................................18 Public Assistance
    [Show full text]
  • Washington DC Neighborhodd Trends Report 2013/14
    CAPITAL 2013 /14’ MARKET WASHINGTON DC APPRAISAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESEARCH TRENDS DESK REPORT VOLUME 1, MARCH 2014 When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir. —John Maynard Keynes Contents 4 Introduction 4 Conventional, Conforming 30-Yr Fixed-Rate 4 Mortgage-Related Bond Issuance and Outstanding 6 The DC Market: One/ Five/ Ten-Year Relative Returns 7 DC Index vs. 10-City Composite Component Indices 7 Seasonality Index 7 Months of Inventory 10 Total Sales Volume and Financing Trends 11 Median Days on Market (DOM) 11 Distressed Sales 13 Parking 13 Market Value and Sales Volume 16 Washington DC: Neighborhood Trends 2013 16 Sales Volume Leaders 16 Market Cap Leaders 19 Median Sale Price 21 Median Sale to List Price 22 Median Days on Market 23 Distressed Sales 24 Neighborhood Databook 2013 30 Neighborhood Map 31 About Us 32 End Notes / General Disclaimer 1 202 320 3702 [email protected] 1125 11 St NW 402 WDC 20001 www.CapitalMarketAppraisal.com Introduction Mortgage-Related Bond Issuance and Outstanding he Capital Market Appraisal 2013 Neighborhood Trends Over the prior year residential mortgage-related bond is- Report was developed to provide market participants suance3 declined 7.6%, falling from $2.019 trillion in 2012 to with a comprehensive overview of the residential real $1.866 trillion in 2013. Over the same period of time resi- T 1 3 estate market in Washington, DC (DC Market ). dential mortgage-related bonds outstanding declined 1.04% from $8.179 trillion in 2012 to $8.094 trillion in 2013. As the We begin by highlighting a few broad measure—medium term overwhelming majority of residential mortgages are packaged trends in the mortgage market.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Unfair Share 3
    Our Unfair Share 3: Race & Pollution in Washington, D.C. African American Environmentalist Association 2000 The African American Environmentalist Association (AAEA), founded in 1985, is dedicated to protecting the environment, enhancing the human ecology, promoting the efficient use of natural resources and increasing African American participation in the environmental movement. AAEA is one of the nation's oldest African American-led environmental organizations. AAEA’s main goals are to deliver environmental information and services directly into the black community. AAEA works to clean up neighborhoods by implementing toxics education, energy, water and clean air programs. AAEA includes an African American point of view in environmental policy decision-making. AAEA resolves environmental racism and environmental justice issues through the application of practical environmental solutions. Our Unfair Share 3: Race and Pollution in Washington, D.C. Author Norris McDonald President Sulaiman Mahdi Contributing Editor Research Assistant Pamela Pittman Administrative Assistant Pamela Jones Editing Red Letter Group, Inc Editing Assistance Ronald Taylor Contributing Scientists Dr. Felix Nwoke Dr. Gustave Jackson © 2000 by the African American Environmentalist Association. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the African American Environmentalist Association. Funding for his report was provided by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice and Friends of AAEA. The views, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are those of the African American Environmentalist Association and do not necessarily reflect the views, recommendations or opinions of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Architecture Overview Presentation Overview
    HISTORIC D.C. NEIGHBORHOODS History and Architecture Overview Presentation Overview D.C.’s Historic Most Common Deeper Dive Neighborhoods Architectural Styles 2 D.C. Historic Districts There are nearly 70 historic districts in Washington, DC! Generally, we separate these into three main categories: • Government and Institutional Historic Districts • Park and Parkway Historic Districts • Neighborhood Historic Districts 3 DC Historic Districts Neighborhood Historic • Kingman Park Districts include: • LeDroit Park • Anacostia • Logan Circle • Blagden Alley/Naylor Court • Massachusetts Avenue • Bloomingdale • Meridian Hill • Capitol Hill • Mount Pleasant • Cleveland Park • Mount Vernon Square • Downtown • Mount Vernon Triangle • Dupont Circle • Shaw • Emerald Street • Sheridan Kalorama • Foggy Bottom • Sixteenth Street • Fourteenth Street • Strivers' Section • Foxhall Village • Takoma Park • Georgetown • U Street • Grant Circle • Union Market • Grant Road • Washington Heights • Kalorama Triangle • Woodley Park 4 D.C.’s Oldest Building? • “The Lindens,” 1754 • Originally built in Danvers, Massachusetts and rebuilt in D.C. in 1935- 1937 The Lindens (Architectural Digest) 5 The Federal City • The District of Columbia was created in 1791, while the federal government arrived in 1800. • Most of the area was still rural when the District was created. Map of the 18th-Century Land Grants in Washington (Washington History) 6 The Federal City • Originally divided between Washington County and Washington City. • Two previously settled areas were Georgetown and Alexandria. • Between 1800 and 1860, clustered settlements formed in some areas like Capitol Hill, Foggy Bottom, and Southwest. Map of the original District of Columbia. Colored portions are Washington City (Library of Congress) 7 Federal Italianate Second Empire Common Architectural Styles Queen Anne 8 Historic D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Washington, D.C.'S Neighborhoods, 2010
    2010 Prepared by Jennifer Comey Chris Narducci Peter A. Tatian Prepared for The Office of Planning The Government of the District of Columbia November 2010 The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Copyright © November 2010. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved. Except for short quotes, no part of this report may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. State of Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhoods iii CONTENTS About this Report ............................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 5 II. Demographics ................................................................................................. 7 Population ................................................................................................................... 7 Households ................................................................................................................12 III. Economy—Jobs and Income .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Crossing / 200 & 250 Massachusetts Ave Nw
    CAPITOL CROSSING / 200 & 250 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW / WASHINGTON, DC 1 W 4 N St N t h Florid S ¤50 t Gallaudet Ridge St NW Patterson St NE a Ave NE Shepherd Park N Mt Vernon Square University W Takoma Barnaby Woods US-50 SOUTH VIEW OF CAPITOL CROSSING | RENDERING SHAW W M St NW M St NE US-1 hip • edgy • residential N t Lamond Riggs M $132,419 AVG HH INCOME S Brightwood CONVENTION a New YorkN Ave NW s h Chevy Chase s e (MD) ac t CENTER h w us 9 Pierce St NW Pierce St NE e t t J Friendship Heights Queens Chapel s Av e Brightwood Park e L St NW r N s NOMA Abbey Pl NE W e 1st St NW L St NW L St NW y L St NE Fort Totten new • evolving • connected 16th Street Heights A American University Park Tenleytown Van Ness v North Michigan Park K MARYLAND e $108,903 AVG HH INCOME Petworth N Crestwood W Spring Valley K St NW Mt Vernon MT VERNON TRIANGLE University Heights ¤29 K St NW K St NW K St NE Cathedral Heights Cleveland Park Square Brookland new • up and coming Palisades Mount Pleasant 1st St NE Wesley Heights Woodbridge Franklin Park $116,119 AVG HH INCOME Park View NW Columbia Heights N Capitol St NE Woodley Park Edgewood McMillan Langdon Fort Lincoln Glover Park I St NW I St NW I St NE Adams Morgan 2 Gateway Brentwood LeDroit Park n 3rd St NW U Street North Shaw Kalorama Bloomingdale d Foxhall Arboretum Eckington Ivy City S New York Ave NW 5th St NW 4th St NW North Dupont t 17th Street Georgetown 14th Street N Truxton Circle H St N W H St N E Logan Circle Shaw Georgetown East E Union Market District NE 5th St NE South Dupont NoMa Trinidad MASSACHUSETTS
    [Show full text]
  • Community Advisory Group
    Community Advisory Group eNewsletter APRIL 2017 Benning Road CAG works with Pepco and DDOE on Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) and Preliminary Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) The Benning Road Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed in 2012 and began work in January of 2013. The CAG was formed as a result of a 2010 Consent Decree signed by Pepco and the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). Pepco is required to submit an annual report on its activities to the Federal court every May. The CAG is committed to advising Pepco on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the Benning road plant. The investigation includes both landside and waterside components. The CAG includes representatives from civic associations, ANCs, and environmental groups active within the footprint of the plant. The group meets once a month and its meetings are open to the public. All meeting dates are posted on Facebook (The Community Advisory Group: The RI/FS Benning Road Power Plant Study). The CAG’s mission is to ensure that there is consistent community engagement and participation throughout the implementation of the RI/FS. DDOE and Pepco meet each month with the CAG to answer their questions and provide regular updates on the work. The ultimate objective of the work is to restore the site, help reduce pollution to the Anacostia River, and protect the communities around the former plant. Currently, the RI/FS study is continuing with additional field investigation studies. A request WHAT’S INSIDE: has been made to update previously submitted preliminary Baseline Human Health Risk Dr.
    [Show full text]